Divx 5.0 => 4.12 better

[pcsl999]

Please go to this url for 4.12 & 5.0 samples
http://www.garnerhk.com/imgs/Movie2.html

Divx 5.0 litter better smooth & detail in low motion
As same as worst in fast motion

my sample: 1200bps 720x416 25fps
I only encode VTS_01_1.VOB(playing time:36:58) without sound.

Divx 4.12 no sound file size = 319MB
Divx 5.0 no sound file size = 318MB
Divx 5.0 no sound w/BE, GMC, QP file size = 318MB


Divx5.0 compare with Xvid_27.01.02
Please go to this url:
)http://www.garnerhk.com/imgs/Movie4.html

Divx5 sample encode in 2pass, 1200bps, 720x416, 25fps
Xvid_H263 sample encode in 2pass, 720x416, 25fps
Xvid_MPEG sample encode in 2pass, 720x416, 25fps

File Size:
Divx 5.0 = 34.4MB (4:00 playing time, 6000frames)
Xvid_H263 = 35.4MB (4:00 playing time, 6000frames)
Xvid_MPEG = 35.4MB (4:00 playing time, 6000frames

[fluor]

Doom9, please use this flash stuff for your future comparisions. Much easier to see differences. However I would like to see only that images change when one click the mousebutton.

[grovsnus]

Is the difference really that small? Somehow I can't seem to understand that.. Part from some blockiness differences, they look the same to me.

At what settings did you test this?

[ungeraynrand]

You are VERY VERY VERY right. The divx5 sample is MUCH better.
Are they the same size?

[Acaila]

That flash thing indeed looks very cool. It really helps determining the difference.

Am I the only one who didn't see any difference between DivX5 and DivX5+goodies? It seemed to me that the "normal" DivX5 picture also used QP, because the blocks were much smaller than with the DivX4 picture (check the guy's nose for instance).

[thekid]

nice flash work

that is a cool comparison to see like that...

thekid...

[nesskiel]

First:Thx for efforts..
Second:Hard to see differences,for my eyes in fact...;)
But what is the weight of each picture?if there is no differences(or too few to mention) may be the weight is really different...

[kheperi]

hey this is cool!
Finally a nice way to compare quality. Change on mouseclick would be even better indeed, but this is really helping.

You even can zoom-in by right clicking on the pic (well i can with win xp) 4.12 looks very blocky and 5 looks much better. But i dont see much difference between the 2 divx5 versions.

[pcsl999]

a few photo were no differnece
5.0 in Low Motion is better, same worst as 4.12 in Fast Motion
I cannot find difference between 5.0 & 5.0 w/ BE, GMC, QP
BE, GMC, QP may only affect the file size, Encode & Decode CPU Usage, no image quality improve.

[kheperi]

WOWSERS!

This is a tool Doom9 should use!

But ummm did you maybe in the hurry to get this online forget to change the image a few times? With most of the pics i do see some or a lot of difference and with some i really cant see any difference at all between 4.12 and 5.0. I hardly can believe that the 2 versions sometimes produce exactly the same images.

And some images you choose....! most of'm really look bad :-/ nomatter what codec used. ok i admit, i looked zoomed at all of'm.

But its completely clear (to me). 5 gives sharper pics with more details and less blocks and blurring. So its an improvement anyway.

Great work pcsl999. Not only the tool, but also the images you choose to show. Oh one thing... pleeaase swap the cursorkey functions, it now feels like pointing with the mouse rotated 180 degrees... :-)

(some typo's fixed)

[Acaila]

@pcsl999

Next time don't create a new thread, but post it on the old one. There's already so many threads that deal with people posting comparison results. If everyone started a new thread with every new test, this forum would become a mess.

I'm merging this with your other post.

[MaTTeR]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see much of a difference in either of the 2 links. I noticed the macroblocks moving a bit I don't see a color shift nor do I see a difference in detail.

Am I going crazy here?

[buba king]

Wow! really good work! one of the best i've seen!

This really enlightned me! DivX5 Only looks slightly better than 4.12 on low motion scenes but i can't see a real difference between 5 and 4 on the high motion scenes, and another thing. bf/cmc/q-pix does not have any affect? please include your filesizes in you next test!

Thanks!

I'm running a Flatron LCD 782LE Trough my DVI connector on my Ati Radeon 8500 so i usually see all artifacts created by jpg compression and divx and i was really amazed that i coulden't see a bigger difference between those 2.. Ok its late maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me? :sly:

[Hanty]

Don't draw too many conclusions from just a screen shot.
You need to see some clips to really know how it handles, preferably one from a high motion scene and one with a lot of darkness and black areas.

[MaTTeR]

Originally posted by Hanty
and one with a lot of darkness and black areas.
This was my biggest complaint about Divx 4.x. Sadly, it seems that very little improvement was made with Divx 5 in this area. I'm talking about the large macroblocks of course:eek:

[Prosper]

Cool! But what I see disturbs me: DIVx 5 offers little improvement over divx 4. Just a quick suggestion:, how 'bout including the MPEG2 reference frame? And while you're at it, how bout XVid (which I'm convinced now is far "better" -- esp. at fast motion scenes)

[Hanty]

Yes, I discovered this the hard way as well Matter, I have superb looking Daylight scenes, and grainy night scenes. :(

[pnl]

I like the flash program this guy uses

http://koti.mbnet.fi/website/mpeg4test/2002.03.08_devils_advocate/devils_advocate_mpeg4_fin.html

you can click on the exact codec you want to see the differences

[kheperi]

I just had a look and i agree. Looks cool. And sbc doesnt look very good...
But there's no divx5 yet there